Rachel Young at Stuff reports:

A 40-tonne boulder has been turned into a political football after it smashed into an unoccupied house in Christchurch’s Port Hills.

Earthquake Minister Gerry Brownlee said the rockfall, which may have been caused by the recent dry weather, vindicated the Government’s decision to take no risks when it came to red-zoning some Port Hill properties.

But some residents forced out of their homes by the Government’s zoning decisions still believe rock protection work is possible.

I would have thought a 40 tonne rock would convince people that safety should be a real concern, but it seems not.

But Sumner resident Phil Elmey, who has vowed to fight the red-zoning of his land, said the house in Finnsarby Place was in a “bowling alley”. He said most of the red-stickered houses could be saved if money was spent on rock protection work.

“Even a rock that size could be stopped by the right protection . . . We think it’s disgraceful that it hasn’t happened.”

I am not an engineer, and I suspect neither is Mr Elmey. But if anyone out there is, maybe you can give us some idea of what sort of protection will stop a 40 tonne rock from ploughing through a house? And what if it was 100 tonnes?

UPDATE: Mr Elmey is an engineer, so I am happy for him to assess his own risk. So long as he is willing to pay for the rock protection himself, and also recuse himself from cover by ACC, health and welfare in case any rocks fall – then he should be free to stay in his house at his own risk.

Audrey Young at NZ Herald reports:

The Government will “most probably” commission another report on David Bain’s application for compensation, Prime Minister John Key said yesterday.

That is the sensible thing to do. There is no way one could make a decision on compensation on the basis of the Binnie report. it isn’t that the conclusion is necessarily wrong – it is that the reasoning and weighting of evidence was done in a way that several law professors have said was outside the norm.

It is possible a more standard review of the evidence will reach the same conclusion on whether Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities (and that is all that was asked for).

Mr Key said Ms Collins would return to the Cabinet with other options that included asking Dr Fisher or someone else to do more work.

Asked if there would be a second report, he said “most probably”.

Mr Key said that while the cost of the process was important, it was necessary to reach a robust conclusion by which New Zealanders could understand why any decision had been reached.

If an individual is appointed and they reach a different conclusion to Binnie, then the accusation will be the Govt just cherry-picked the answer they wanted. This is why I like the suggestion that a panel of three be asked to do the second report. If they all agree on the key issue of innocence on the balance of probabilities then I think there will be fairly widespread acceptance of any decision by Cabinet that follows that report. The hardcore believers on both sides will never accept a report that doesn’t say what they want – but I think the majority of NZers want to see an end to it, and a multi-person panel will give them confidence of a fair resolution.

Gordon Copeland writes in the Dom Post:

The debate on same-sex marriage lacks context because its promoters have failed to take into account the equal rights already established in New Zealand law for same-sex couples.

Everyone remembers the passing of the Civil Unions Act in late 2004 because of the publicity it generated. The Civil Unions Act was followed by a companion Relationships (Statutory References) Act in early 2005 – the Relationships Act. It was passed by Parliament without fanfare and little publicity. It has therefore been missing from this debate because its purpose and legal effects are largely unknown to New Zealanders. Yet it is of crucial importance.

So what did the Relationships Act do? It amended more then 150 acts of Parliament to add, after every reference to “marriage”, the words “civil union and de facto” so there would be a complete and perfect legal equality between marriage, civil unions and heterosexual or homosexual de facto relationships. It means all couples, in any of these relationships, have the same rights under New Zealand law, with the possible exception of the adoption law.

This is a valid argument against same sex marriage. It is not one I agree with but it is a better argument than Colin Craig’s views that people choose to be gay.

Gordon Copeland is a former MP who was in Parliament in 2004-2005 when the Civil Unions and Relationships (Statutory References) Acts were passed. He opposed both.

This is what amuses me. You vote against bills to give same sex couples any legal recognition at all, and then use the fact you were defeated as an argument for why the law is now great and no further changes are needed.

It’s a bit like voting against women getting the vote, and then once you lose that vote arguing women don’t need to be able to stand for Parliament also because they have the vote, and that is what matters.

We have reactivated comment karma which allows you to vote up or down on comments you feel are especially good or especially bad. Don’t vote on every comment as that can cause load issues, and if you vote try and be fair – vote on what is being said, not on who is saying it.

No comments get hidden if they get negative ratings. The ratings are just a feedback device.

The Emergency Department of Waikato DHB have done a Gangnam Style parody. Great fun and really well done- but with a serious message about improving the flow of patients through the department to meet the six hour target for treatment.

Excellent stuff.

The Telegraph reports:

Mr Cameron pledged an in-out referendum in the first half of the next parliament as democratic consent for membership is currently “wafter thin”.

The Herald reports:

Mr Shearer pledged last year to meet regularly with the Ratana movement.

Since then, he has hosted the church elders at Parliament and met them several times.

“So I am going up for the church service on Friday – for me that is the most significant day and it’s the day when people commemorate it.”

He said this week that Labour were also now in discussions with Ratana about whether it would become an affiliate of the party.

That would give it some influence over candidate selections and voting power in future leadership elections.

I think it is abhorrent that external organisations have voting rights in political parties. It makes them a hostage to special interests. Think if Business NZ was allowed to vote on National Party policy, candidates and the leader? It would be called organised corruption. Think if the Destiny Church was allowed to become an affiliate of the Conservative Party and vote on their policies? Think if Greenpeace got 20% of the votes for the Green Party leadership? Why is such an anti-democratic thing as organisational affiliates tolerated in Labour? It isn’t far removed from US style special interests buying politicians.

All voting in political parties should be by individuals who have chosen to join the party in their capacity as an elector.

And encouraging a church to become an affiliate member of a so called secular political party. My God. Anything for votes or money.

Kate Shuttleworth at NZ Herald reports:

The Green Party has announced ambitious plans for a shared-equity housing ownership model designed to help low-income families with dependent children into home ownership.

The plan was announced days after a report showing Auckland had among the most unaffordable housing in the world. The median price has reached $500,000 in the past few months.

Under the Greens’ progressive home ownership model, the Crown would build houses for up to $300,000 which families would live in, and eventually own if they chose to. The Crown would initially own all the equity in the house because families would not need to pay a deposit.

Families would make weekly payments, similar to rent, to cover the Crown’s investment cost – $200 a week on a $300,000 house at a government bond rate of 3.5 per cent. They would make additional weekly payments to buy equity in the property until it is owned outright.

The payments would be about $100 a week, but that figure would be flexible if circumstances changed.

Why don’t Labour and the Greens go the whole hog, wave a wand, and declare free homes for everyone?

Let’s even assume that the Government can magically construct a house for $300,000 in Auckland. They can’t but play along.

The NZ Super Fund says the long-term risk-free fate of return for the Government is 5.1%. We’ll use 5.0%. What this means is that sticking $300,000 into a house has an opportunity cost to taxpayers of $15,000 a year. You charge rent of $200 a week and that is a $5,000 a year subsidy to the lucky Lotto winners whose names get pulled out of the ballot for a house. And it is a subsidy for life. Doesn’t matter how wealthy they become. The poor slob earning $30,000 a year will be subsidising the dinkie couple on $200,000 whose name got pulled out of the ballot. And far worse than that as chump taxpayers also pay for rates, maintenance ad the likes.

Why would you buy equity in the house? You’d be mad to. Take their example of $100 a week. Over a year you pay $5,200. This is 1.7% of the $300,000 equity. So the weekly rent would drop from $200 to $196.53. That means you have paid $180 less rent. You’ll get more than that if you put the $5,000 into even government bonds.

The Labour policy is shonky.. The Greens policy is nutty. Combining them together will mean the Government taking on over $3 billion of extra debt a year.  And all this money would not go to the poorest familes, or families most in need. It would be like Lotto. They will draw names out of a hat, as demand will of course exceed supply. Yes that is Labour’s official policy – to determine these taxpayer subsidised houses on the basis of a random draw. And to make it worse, the Greens will make those lucky Lotto winners a winner for life – subsidised rents for ever and ever – no matter how much you earn.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Mr Harawira said he had been approached by Maori Party members around the country who were keen for him to take over.

“Clearly they’re in dire straits right now, their membership has just dropped through the floor.”

Mr Harawira quit the Maori Party ahead of the 2011 election following perpetual infighting.

There would be ground rules to the proposed merger – Mr Harawira wants be the leader and the Maori Party would have to end its relationship with National.

At the time Hone left the Maori Party, I said it was more about the fact he wanted to be the Leader, than anything else. I think this confirms it.

David Shearer is going to give a speech next week and claim the Government is a hands off economic manager, and Labour will be a hands on economic manager and this is the big difference. It’s a speech that may have been true in the early 90s, but anyone who seriously claims the Key Government is hands off is letting ideology get in the way of reality.

Personally I think the Government should be more hands off. I think many economic interventions are well intentioned but often have unforeseen consequences.

The Press reports:

A large Canterbury irrigation scheme may be among the first considered by a new Crown company that will act as a bridging investor.

Minister of Primary Industries David Carter said yesterday that the Government was setting up a company that would invest in feasible, affordable and profitable irrigation schemes.

The Cabinet decided late last year that a company was needed to run the Government’s $400 million irrigation fund. It would receive $80m in this year’s Budget for its first year of operation, he said.

It was appropriate the Government took the investment role to ensure the right projects got under way, Carter said.

“The Crown-owned company will be a minority investor in any development project and it will also plan to be a relatively short-term investor,” he said. “A number of groups are developing proposals for these larger, regional-level schemes, and the Government expects to consider at least one proposal in the next 12 months.”

Irrigation New Zealand called the move “well deserved”.

Chairman John Donkers said irrigation schemes were a huge financial pressure for farmers and farming communities.

“For many years farmers have personally carried the cost of water infrastructure, which can run into the millions of dollars yet benefits regional economies enormously,” he said.

“Having a government-owned company invest in the initial stages takes the pressure off small communities to find that kind of capital upfront. The benefits for regional New Zealand can’t be underestimated.”

It was important to realise the Government was not giving away money. “This is equity funding. The Government is going to want it paid back over time,” he said.

So when David Shearer claims the Government is ideologically averse to hands on involvement in the economy, I hope someone asks him about the $400 million irrigation fund, the $1.5 billion for ultra-fast broadband, $100m for export assistance, $15m for business capability, $30m for sector and special events, $30m for international growth opportunities, $50m for large budget screen productions, $10m for major events, $12m for venture capital, $10m for primary industry grants, $9m for sustainable farming, $70m for primary growth partnerships, $220m for CRI funding, $178m for high value manufacturing and services research, $106m for biological industries research, $84m for health and society research, $47m for Marsden Fund and so on.

Anyone who thinks John Key, Bill English and Steven Joyce are neo-liberal hands-off ideologues is somewhat demented. Personally I wish they were a bit more hands off.

This is not to say there are no differences betwee National and Labour in terms of how involved the Government should be in the economy. There are differences, and reasonably important ones. Labour thinks the Government must own 100% of certain assets, for example. But the current differences between National and Labour in terms of involvement in the economy tend to be around the details, not a fundamental disagreement that the Government has a role in economic development. ACT has that view. Ruth Richardson (God bless her) has that view.

Shearer knows there are few votes to be won in claiming “our interventions in the economy will be better than National’s”. So what he will try and do is say National doesn’t intervene at all, and we will. He hopes enough people will believe that. The truth is far more mundane.

The Press reports:

Schools in Christchurch’s west need to stop enrolling so many pupils from struggling schools in the east, an Aranui principal says.

Aranui High School principal John Rohs is even calling on the Ministry of Education to intervene before rolls in the east fall even further.

More young people from the east were travelling further afield to go to high school, he said.

A pupil doesn’t belong to the school they live closest to. If families are choosing to go to schools further afield, the problem is not them making that choice. The problem is why they do not find the local school satisfactory.

Ministry figures released to The Press under the Official Information Act show three state co-educational schools in the city’s west have increased the number of out-of-zone pupils since 2009. They deny deliberately poaching pupils from the east.

The figures show Burnside High School had 125 out-of-zone pupils in 2009, or 5 per cent of its roll, and last year it had 423 (17 per cent).

But Burnside High School principal Warwick Maguire said the ministry figures were wrong. He said the school consistently enrolled about 20 to 25 per cent of its pupils from out-of-zone each year and was trying to reduce its out-of-zone numbers, not increase them.

The school, which has a roll of 2600 pupils, could have taken a lot more out-of-zone pupils than it did this year, Maguire said.

It had 750 out-of-zone pupils take part in the ballot to start at year 9 this year and the school took about 480, which was fewer than last year.

“If we took all the people that wanted to come here we would be 3000-plus and that would have a bad effect on other schools.”

My concern is the effect on the achievement levels of students, not on schools. Let Burnside be 4,000 if they wish to be I say.

Stuff reports:

The move came as Finance Minister Bill English warned councils could be stripped of land-allocation powers unless new space was set aside for development, especially in Auckland and Christchurch.

English predicted progress within months, adding: “Certainly well before next year we would be expecting to see changes.”

Allocating more land for housing isn’t quite a silver bullet. There are almost no silver bullets in politics. But it would be the one action that can make the most difference.

Auckland has an urban density around the same as New York and Sydney.  That’s pretty incredible when you consider that the more populous the city the higher you expect the density to be.

As the story on Gareth Morgan’s call for a cat genocide is staying topical, I thought I’d elaborate on why it is such a near sociopathically bad idea.

First of all, I think most would agree that yes cats eats birds. And as far as I know you can not train a cat to only eat exotic birds and leave native birds alone, so cats eat native birds and it is bad for biodiversity if a species is wiped out.

I would certainly dispute that non-feral cats alone have killed any species, as do experts.. As almost all cats live in urban areas, any impact from domestic cats is geographically limited. It is estimated 25 million birds are killed annually by predators (possums, stoats, cats feral and domestic). It is also estimated that 1 million birds are killed annually by power lines, so maybe someone will advocate we get rid of electricity to help native birds. And wind turbines are a massive killer of birds overseas – around 1,000 per wind turbine.

Now most would agree it is beneficial to not have native birds killed. But do we as a country ban wind turbines and ban electricity lines, to protect birds? Of course we don’t. Why? Because the benefits from wind turbines and power lines exceed the detrimental impact on birds.

So the question is do we get benefits from domesticated cats? Now I absolutely accept not everyone likes cats. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether people should be allowed to have a cat as a pet because they do want one.

And this is where I think Gareth Morgan and others who advocate NZ should rid itself of domestic cats have something wrong with them, and are lacking in some basic human empathy. Cats can and do play a huge role in quality of life for many New Zealanders, especially more elderly New Zealanders. The companionship they get from cats is incredibly powerful, and the bond a human can have with a pet can be incredibly strong. If you are a elderly New Zealander living by yourself (and a dog is not an option as they need exercise), a cat can make a huge difference to quality of life. And to be honest anyone who thinks a few birds are more important than the happiness so many people get from their cats, has a warped sense of priorities.

Cat owners should of course be responsible. Stick a bell on your cat and get it spayed. But  advocating that NZ become the only country (except maybe Antarctica  in the world that has no cats is just bonkers, and anyone who seriously advocates it has what I regard as very warped values.  Nothing wrong with not liking cats yourself, but something very wrong in advocating no one should have a cat.

Chris Hipkins blogs at Red Alert:

At some stage over the next few weeks, possibly as early as next Thursday, parliament will elect a new Speaker. As an opposition MP I never thought I’d find myself saying this, but we’ll be sad to see Lockwood Smith go. As Speaker, he has raised the bar in terms of ministerial accountability in the House. His most significant ruling, that when asked a straight question ministers should give straight answers, has changed the whole nature of Question Time. That ruling will remain in place long after his departure, although whether the new Speaker has the ability to implement it with the same precision and diligence is yet to be seen.

Just before Christmas, Lockwood raised the bar again, this time relating to ministerial accountability outside the Debating Chamber. Under parliament’s rules MPs are also allowed to ask written questions of ministers. There are a lot more of these and they don’t always receive the same level of attention questions in the House do. But they’re a vital information channel for the opposition, and they’re another way we can hold ministers to account for their performance and the performance of their departments. …

But the effect of this ruling will extend well beyond this one instance. If the new Speaker maintains this new high standard, the improved level of accountability we’ve seen at Question Time will extend beyond the walls of the Debating Chamber. That’s a good thing.

I’ll blog more fully on Lockwood’s achievements and legacy when he steps down as Speaker, but I thought this post by Chris Hipkins was worth highlighting. It’s not often the Senior Opposition Whip would be so laudatory of a Speaker.

I agree that Lockwood has done an excellent job in improving accountability of the Executive.

Cam at Whale Oil has been blogging on the silly antics on the Howick Local Board, where the Chair has been trying to sack the Deputy Chair. You’d think they’d have far more important things to focus on, than who the hell is deputy chair of a local board.

Anyway a reader has sent to me an e-mail where C&R Howick have cancelled a planned meeting and drinks for prospective candidates. They advised:

I am sorry to inform you that our meeting for Wednesday 23 January 2013 at 7:00 PM in the Billiard Room of Fisher House night is cancelled due to an urgent incident. The meeting will be rescheduled for another time. I hope that the cancellation of the meeting has not caused any problem on your part.

The meeting was for:

You’re invited to join us for Candidate Drinks, an opportunity for existing C&R Team Howick members to meet with prospective new candidates.

The event is to be held on Wednesday 23 January 2013 in the xxx.

It has been a busy time for the Howick Local Board, developing a 10 year plan for our area. All nine board members have past local government experience, which has been helpful.

I believe that we as the majority team on the board must have a succession plan to continue to bring in new people with fresh ideas both in 2013 and in future election years. Now is the time to think about who those fresh faces might be.

I hope you can make it along and if you would like to nominate any other prospective candidates, please let me know. 

C&R need to sort their stuff out, at least in Howick. They should be focusing on the big issues such as rates, council accountability, infrastructure rather than infighting. If they don’t it will just help Labour and the Greens take over via their City Vision and other sock puppets.

Rob Salmond on his website discloses:

I am a native-born New Zealander, and also hold US citizenship. I work as Political Director in the Office of the New Zealand Labour Party Leader, a position I have held since early 2013. I have been a member of the labour party since 1998, and have worked on various partisan and independent campaigns for left-leaning government in New Zealand since 1996. Earlier New Zealand-based work included positions in the Office of the Prime Minister (2007) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (1998-2001).

It s fascinating that Rob has moved back to New Zealand to take up this role. A very smart appointment by Robertson and Cameron as I rate Rob’s political and data skills very highly. I expect to see his presence lead to significant changes in Labour’s political operations. National should perhaps be happy he wasn’t there in 2012.

Not quite sure where political director sits in the structure, and whether it includes media, comms and research – or if they all report to the chief of staff.

John Matheson at Truth reports that Ryan Nelson has retired from international football.

Darcy Cowan at Sci Blogs has a 28 question science literacy test.

The test takes a fair while as you really have to think and comprehend some of the questions.

There were a couple of questions where I wasn’t sure about the answer because it was not a right/wrong question but a “What bext explains …” type question.

However I got 28 out of 28, which I am happy with. The full results were:

For Identifying valid scientific arguments you achieved 3 out of 3.

  For Evaluating and distinguishing sources you achieved 6 out of 6

  For Evaluating uses of scientific information you achieved 3 out of 3

  For Evaluating research design you achieved 4 out of 4

  For Making a graph you achieved 1 out of 1

  For Interpreting graphical information you achieved 4 out of 4

  For Quantitative problem solving you achieved 3 out of 3

  For Interpreting statistics you achieved 3 out of 3

  For Interpreting quantitative data you achieved 2 out of 2

If you do the quiz, post your scores below. Note it is a beta and Darcy is after feedback which can be made on the site linked to.

Kate Shuttleworth at NZ Herald reports:

Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples has confirmed he is being challenged for the position by Te Ururoa Flavell.

Maori Party president Pem Bird will lead a meeting with the party this afternoon over the leadership challenge.

Dr Sharples reportedly said in his arrival speech at the annual Ratana celebrations near Wanganui he would stand down if asked to by the party.

For my 2c I think there is value in having at least one co-leader who is not a Minister so they can devote their time to political leadership and issues, rather than portfolio management.

Simon Collins at NZ Herald reports:

Labour MP Moana Mackey asked Mr Craig if he still believed, as he said last August, that homosexuality was “a choice”.

“I do,” he said. “It’s a choice influenced by a number of things including genetics.”

This is just nonsense. I think it is perfectly valid to not support same sex marriage. But I do not think it is valid to keep insisting that being homosexual is a choice.

My question back to Colin Craig would be when did he decide to be heterosexual. What age was he? Did he weigh up the pros and cons of heterosexuality vs homosexuality? Did he consult friends over his choice?

You can choose whom you have sex with. But you don’t get to choose whom you are sexually attracted to. I wish we could – would make life much easier!

Dana Johannsen reports at NZ Herald:

New Zealand’s national sport has been lambasted as a sexist institution and the “last bastion of chauvinism” after a report found women were excluded from decision-making at all levels of the game.

The NZRU has never had a female voice at the boardroom table, while of 194 board positions at provincial level, just five (two of which are on the Auckland Rugby Board) are taken by women.

The glaring imbalance prompted Dr Judy McGregor, in her former role at the Human Rights Commission, to launch a campaign late last year pushing for the inclusion of a female representative on the NZRU board.

I think diversity on a board is a good thing, and that includes sports boards.

However I do wonder what percentage of the 150,000 or so rugby players in New Zealand are women? Anyone know?

How many men have been on the board of Netball NZ? There appears to be one there at the moment. And what proportion of netball players are men?

The Herald interviews NZ First List MP Andrew Williams:

Is it better fun being in Parliament than being a mayor [for the former North Shore City]?

It’s totally different, really. A mayor is 24/7 and you can never get away from it when you are a mayor because literally people expect you every day of the week to be at their beck and call. I think MPs have a little bit more ability to get out there without being under daily scrutiny.

Heh, and further away from Whale Oil 🙂

What is the most frustrating thing about working at Parliament?

Well, it’s a little bit being on the Titanic heading towards an iceberg in that it is a long, slow process and it is frustrating. When you are a mayor you can certainly move things along a lot faster than in Parliament. It does surprise me how some bills that are coming before the House right now were introduced originally under the Labour Government or are three or four years old. The process seems to be a very arduous one.

Even a quick law will take around nine months. With limited house time, yeah some laws take up to a decade to pass.

Which MP outside your party impresses you and why?

There’s a lot of them. I’ve always had a lot of time for Phil Goff. He’s a very, very [hard-working], long-serving MP. Over in the National benches I have been very impressed with Nathan Guy because I am veterans’ affairs spokesman and I’ve had some very good discussions with Nathan, and he has been very accommodating and very helpful on particular issues I have raised with him. And I’ve been impressed with Russel Norman.

An ecclectic mix.

Do you have a bill in the private members bill ballot?

I’m preparing one allowing superannuitants to get tax relief for maintaining their health insurance and for fringe benefit tax to be removed from health insurance for companies, to encourage companies to maintain a health insurance programme for their staff … They don’t have to actually pay for it.

Tax relief just for oldies? A pretty naked bribe. Removing FBT for health insurance for staff is well motivated, but inevitably will lead to massive rorts as all those with existing health insurance will just get it made part of their remuneration package to avoid it being taxed.